I hated an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Despite this seemingly impossible statement, I utterly detested every moment of Alfred Hitchcock's, The Birds. Maybe I was missing something or just was not in the mood. There is most likely some genius film theory that explains why Hitchcock made the movie the way he did. But, I did not enjoy the film in any way. For starters, I have a slight fear of birds, and I still question why I chose to watch this movie. But, I did not find The Birds scary at all. I felt no suspense, no Hitchcock magic. I was bored the entire movie, and the ending was not interesting nor did it provide a satisfying conclusion. Deep down I wished someone died or something tragic happened just so there would be a purpose to the madness. At the end of the movie I still had countless unanswered questions: "Why did the birds go mad?", "Was it the love birds?", "Do they make it out alive?", "Why did they take the love birds with them?"... Disappointment overcame my bored, barely interested self once the credits began to roll.
Xan Brooks in a film blog for guardian.co.uk, describes The Birds as a film with "no answers, and no escape." I think this idea captures my view the movie perfectly and probably explains why I do not like it. Defending Hitchcock, one could say he was utilizing his theory of suspense: let the audience know a bomb will go off, but never actually have the bomb go off. The audience knows that the birds are surrounding the house and that they could attack at any moment. But they do not. Why? What is he trying to show us?
But, despite my inferior opinion, Hitchcock's, The Birds, is acutally a very impressive movie. Hitchcock's staff trained, "about 3,200 birds" (pajiba.com), in the making of the film. He used REAL birds, no fake effects. But, the most interesting thing I have found is Hithcock's strategic build up of suspense. I personally was not effected by it significantly, but most people who watch and like the moves definitely are. The movie starts off as a harmless, romantic comedy type of film. The screenwriter, Evan Hunter, thought it would be good to have "striking comic sparks" between Melanie and Mitch, "and go from that point to terror" (pajiba.com). The terror slowly progresses. First, Melanie is attacked by a seagull. Next, the a few seagulls attack Cathy's birthday party. Later on, smaller birds invade Mitch's house by entering through the chimney. In the next scene, Mitch's mother finds her father dead in his bedroom with his eyes pecked out and house destroyed. The attacks become greater in size and devestation when a pack of crows attacks the school children. Closely following, a few birds cause a gas leak that results in an explosion and large fire at the gas station, and then the birds swoop down and attack the town. In the final, most frightening attacked in the attic of the house, but in the final moments of the movie they all escape without harm (as far as we know).
The action progresses and becomes more frightening each scene. More birds attack, and these attacks also become progressivley worse. This build up of action is essential to the successful suspense of the movie The Birds. But why does Hitchcock let them escape? I think it was because of his sympathy towards the audience. It was such a disturbing movie that he needed some kind of "relief" at the end.
Xan Brooks in a film blog for guardian.co.uk, describes The Birds as a film with "no answers, and no escape." I think this idea captures my view the movie perfectly and probably explains why I do not like it. Defending Hitchcock, one could say he was utilizing his theory of suspense: let the audience know a bomb will go off, but never actually have the bomb go off. The audience knows that the birds are surrounding the house and that they could attack at any moment. But they do not. Why? What is he trying to show us?
But, despite my inferior opinion, Hitchcock's, The Birds, is acutally a very impressive movie. Hitchcock's staff trained, "about 3,200 birds" (pajiba.com), in the making of the film. He used REAL birds, no fake effects. But, the most interesting thing I have found is Hithcock's strategic build up of suspense. I personally was not effected by it significantly, but most people who watch and like the moves definitely are. The movie starts off as a harmless, romantic comedy type of film. The screenwriter, Evan Hunter, thought it would be good to have "striking comic sparks" between Melanie and Mitch, "and go from that point to terror" (pajiba.com). The terror slowly progresses. First, Melanie is attacked by a seagull. Next, the a few seagulls attack Cathy's birthday party. Later on, smaller birds invade Mitch's house by entering through the chimney. In the next scene, Mitch's mother finds her father dead in his bedroom with his eyes pecked out and house destroyed. The attacks become greater in size and devestation when a pack of crows attacks the school children. Closely following, a few birds cause a gas leak that results in an explosion and large fire at the gas station, and then the birds swoop down and attack the town. In the final, most frightening attacked in the attic of the house, but in the final moments of the movie they all escape without harm (as far as we know).
The action progresses and becomes more frightening each scene. More birds attack, and these attacks also become progressivley worse. This build up of action is essential to the successful suspense of the movie The Birds. But why does Hitchcock let them escape? I think it was because of his sympathy towards the audience. It was such a disturbing movie that he needed some kind of "relief" at the end.